Criterion-referenced (mastery) testing as the advocated grading framework¶

Theory · All theories
Evidence · 1 claim (1 for) · 1 study (1 theoretical), q1 · 0 of 1 report an effect size · 1 claim rests on one study

Description¶

The essay's central framework: each student is "judged solely in relation to these pre-established criteria" — the course objectives — "and independently of the performance of any other student." Students who have not yet learned are merely in the process of learning; slower learners are helped, not stigmatized, and cooperation is safe because class rank is not at stake. A pass-fail cutoff remains arbitrary, but repeated opportunities to demonstrate mastery remove its sting.

Design Implications¶

Context¶

Requirements¶

• Criteria or behavioral objectives for the course must be established, which the author says is easy for logically sequenced subject matter but harder for courses aiming at creative products or novel solutions.

Constraints¶

• The pass-fail cutoff remains arbitrary, since adjacent scores around it are not significantly different; the author argues this is benign only because students get other opportunities to demonstrate achievement.

Target Learners¶

• students at any educational level, elementary through college

Target Learning Objectives¶

• mastery of pre-established course objectives

Claims¶

• Grade Cutoffs Arbitrary Adjacent Scores [+W]

Related Theories¶

• Criterion-referenced testing: tests deliberately constructed so scores tell what behaviors individuals can demonstrate

Examples¶

• Establish evaluative criteria as a creative project evolves through student-faculty feedback conferences

Key Sources¶

• Gentile, J. Ronald. (1971). Toward Excellence in Teaching: Grading Practices. https://eric.ed.gov/?id=ED061264